Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants: An Application To Indian Urban City

7
Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants:

An Application to Indian Urban City
P. Goyal and Anikender Kumar
Centre for Atmospheric Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
India
1. Introduction
Continuous development and increase of population in the urban areas, a series of problems
related to environment such as deforestation, release of toxic materials, solid waste
disposals, air pollution and many more, have attracted attention much greater than ever
before. The problem of air pollution in cities has become so severe that there is a need for
timely information about changes in the pollution level. The air pollution dispersion is a
complex problem. It covers the pollutant transport and diffusion in the atmosphere. The
pollutant dispersion in the atmosphere depends on pollutant features, meteorological,
emission and terrain conditions. Physical and mathematical models are developed to
describe the air pollution dispersion. Physical models are small scale representations of the
atmospheric flow carried out in wind tunnels. Mathematical models are divided in to
statistical and deterministic models. Statistical models are based on analysis of past
monitoring air quality data. Deterministic models are based on a mathematical description
of physical and chemical processes taking place in the atmosphere. These models are based
on mathematical equations, express conservation laws of mass, momentum and energy.
Both the models are discussed in this chapter.
Statistical models are also divided into linear and non-linear models. Several studies based
on the statistical models have been carried out in different regions to identify local
meteorological conditions, most strongly associated with air pollutants concentration to
forecast the air quality (McCollister & Willson, 1975; Aron & Aron, 1978; Lin, 1982; Aron,
1984; Katsoulis, 1988; Robeson & Steyn, 1990). Many of the previous studies (Sanchez et. al.,
1990; Mantis et al., 1992; Milionis & Davies, 1994) analyzed the meteorological conditions
associated with high pollutant concentration. These studies usually produced qualitative or
semi quantitative results and shed light on the relation between the meteorological
conditions and pollutant concentrations. Shi & Harrison, 1997 developed a linear regression
model for the prediction of NOx and NO2 in London. A linear regression model was used by
Cogliani, 2001 for air pollution forecast in cities by an air pollution index highly correlated
with meteorological variables. Since the relation between air pollutants and meteorological
variables is not linear, some non-linear models i.e., Neural Network can also be used to
forecast the pollutant concentrations (Bozner et al., 1993; Comrie, 1997).
The deterministic models are divided in to Eulerian, Lagrangian and Gaussian models. In
this chapter we discuss only the Eulerian analytical models. The atmospheric diffusion
www.intechopen.com
102 Air Quality - Models and Applications
equation (Seinfeld, 1986) has long been used to describe the dispersion of airborne
pollutants in a turbulent atmosphere. The use of analytical solutions of this equation was the
first and remains the convenient way for modeling the air pollution problems (Demuth,
1978). Air dispersion models based on analytical solutions posses several advantages over
numerical models as all the influencing parameters are explicitly expressed in a
mathematically closed form. Analytical models are also useful in examining the accuracy
and performance of numerical models. In practice, most of the estimates of dispersion are
based on the Gaussian plume model, which assumes the constant wind speed and turbulent
eddies with height. Hinrichsen (1986) compared a non-Gaussian model, in which wind
speed and turbulence, are not constant with height and observed that non Gaussian model
agreed better than Gaussian model with the observed data.
Several efforts have also been made for the development of non-Gaussian models of point
and line sources, since observational studies show that the wind speed and eddy diffusivity
vary with vertical height above the ground (Stull, 1988). Analytical solutions of the
advection diffusion equation, with wind speed and vertical eddy diffusivity both as power
function of vertical height, bounded by Atmospheric Boundary Layer (ABL) are well known
for point and line sources (Seinfeld, 1986; Lin & Hildemann, 1996). Taylors (1921) analysis
and statistical theory suggest that the eddy diffusivity depends on the downwind distance
from the source (Arya, 1995). The advection diffusion equation has also solved analytically
with wind speed as function of height and eddy diffusivity as a function of downwind
distance from the source (Sharan & Modani, 2006). Thus in general, the eddy diffusivity
should be a function of both vertical as well as downwind distance (Mooney & Wilson,
1993). Recently (Sharan & Kumar, 2009) formulate the advection diffusion equation
considering the wind speed as a function of vertical height and eddy diffusivity as a
function of both vertical height and downwind distance applicable only for point source
release in reflecting boundary condition. However, Dirichlet (total absorption), Neumann
(total reflection) and mixed boundary conditions are also appropriate for calculating the
actual ground-level concentration of air pollutants. In addition to these, the few studies have
been made for analytical solution of the advection diffusion equation for area sources. Park
& Baik (2008) have solved the advection diffusion equation analytically for finite area source
with wind speed and vertical eddy diffusivity as power function of vertical height in
unbounded region
The objective of this chapter is to formulate and use the statistical (linear and non-linear)
and Eulerian analytical models for prediction/forecast of air pollutants released from point,
line and area sources. The analytical models are developed by using four different set of
boundary conditions. The model with reflecting boundary condition is used for urban city
Delhi, the capital of India and is validated by the observed values of concentration of
Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM).
2. Mathematical models
2.1 Statistical models
The main role of statistical models is to analyze past monitored air quality data. They are
divided into linear and non-linear models. Linear Models as Multiple Linear Regression
(MLR) can be used to make a linear empirical relationship between air pollutants and
meteorological variables. The methodology of MLR is explained briefly in next section.
www.intechopen.com
Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants: An Application to Indian Urban City 103
2.1.1 Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) models

A forecast/prediction of air pollutants can be made though regression equation in which
unknown variable can be expressed as a function of certain number of known variables.
There is one dependent variable to be predicted in relation to the two or more independent
variables. The general form of MLR can be expressed as
Y= b1 +b2 X2+...........+bk Xk+ e (1)

where Y is dependent variable, X2, X3......., Xk are independent variables, b1, b2......., bk
are linear regression parameters and e is an estimated error term, which is obtained from
independent random sampling from the normal distribution with mean zero and constant
variance. The purpose of regression modeling is to estimate the b1, b2.........., bk, which can be
made using minimum square error technique.
The (Eq. (1)) can also be written as
Y=Xb+e (2)
Y1 b1 e1
Y b e
2 1X 21 X 31 ....X k1 2 2
where Y = : , X = : and e = :
.... .. , b =

: 1X 2n X 3n .... X kn : :
Y b e
n k n
The solution of above equation can be obtained as b = X X X Y using minimum square

Here Y is an n x 1, X is an n x k, b is a k x 1 and e is an n x 1 matrix.
1
error technique. Further the F-test has been performed to determine whether a relationship
exists between the dependent variables and regressors. The t-test is also performed in order
to determine the potential value of each of the regressors variables in the regression model.
The resulting model can be used to predict future values.
If the relationship between air pollutants and meteorological variables is not linear, non-
linear models like Artificial Neural Network can be used for treating the non-linear
relationship. The models characteristics are described in next section.
2.1.2 Artificial Neural Network

The Artificial Neural Network (ANN) represents an alternative methodology to
conventional statistical modeling because of their computational efficiency and
generalization ability. ANN models are mathematical models inspired by the biological
neurons. The use of ANN as mentioned in the literature is an effective alternative to more
traditional statistical techniques for forecasting time series. ANN can be trained to
approximate virtually any smooth, measurable and highly nonlinear functions between
input and output and requires no prior knowledge to the nature of this relationship
(Gardner & Dorling, 1998) and can also be trained to generalize, when presented with new
and unseen data. ANNs are made up of interconnected processing elements called neurons
or nodes that are arranged in the layers. These layers include an input layer, one or more
hidden layers and an output layer which are connected to each neuron of the next layer by
the weights. The number of hidden layer is selected based upon the problem complexity.
The number of neuron in the input and output layer is problem specific. The information
www.intechopen.com
transfer is allowed only to the next consecutive layer. Each node of the hidden layer
receives incoming signals from the nodes of the input layer. Each input value is weighted
and based on its relative importance before entering the hidden layer. The total input signal
NET is calculated as
NET Wi X i (3)
i
The total incoming signal is then passed through a non-linear transfer function F to produce
the outgoing signal F (NET) of the node.
F(NET) 1
1 e NET
(4)
The output signal of a hidden node is finally passed to the nodes of the next layer (hidden or
output), where a similar procedure takes place. There are several transfer functions
available such as pure linear, hyperbolic tangent, sigmoid etc. Transfer function plays a key
role in training process of neural network because the ANN produce different results
sensitive to its transfer function (Wassermann, 1989). The process of optimizing the
connection weights is known as training or learning of ANN. This is equivalent to the
parameter estimation phase in the conventional statistical models. Iterative techniques are
used to get the best values for connection weights by minimizing the performance function
i.e. error between model output and the provided target values. The trained network is then
used for the forecasting/prediction purpose. ANN has the capability to recognize the
patterns in the time series data presented to it and is thus useful in many types of pattern
recognition problems.
2.2 Deterministic models

Deterministic models are based on a mathematical description of physical and chemical
processes taking place in the atmosphere. These models are divided into different categories
on the basis of source characteristics as point, line and area sources or on the basis of
topography of the region as flat or complex terrain. These models can also be classified on
the basis of size of the field they are describing:
Short distance (distance from source less than 30-50 km)
Mesoscale models (concentration fields of the order of hundreds of kms)
Continental or planetary circulation models
Finally, models can also be classified on the basis of the time resolution of the concentration
produced:
Episodic models (temporal resolution of less than an hour)
Short-time models (temporal resolutions grater than or equal to an hour and less than
or equal to 24h)
Climatologically models (with resolution grater than 24h, generally seasonal or annual)
(Tirabassi, 2010).
These models are divided into three categories according to different approaches as
Eulerian, Lagrangian and Gaussian. Eulerian approach is based on a fixed spatial-temporal
grid. The basic equation used in Eulerian air pollution dispersion models is derived from the
equation of the pollutant molecular diffusion:
www.intechopen.com
C
U.C D 2 C S
t
(5)
where: C- concentration of pollutant in the atmospheric air,

U- wind speed vector of the components u, v, w,
D- Molecular diffusion coefficient,
S- Represents the sources and sinks of pollutant in the atmosphere i.e. its emission, removal
- Gradient operator,
from the atmosphere by dry and wet deposition, chemical reactions,
2- Laplacian.
Eq. (5) has been modified for the turbulent flow in the atmosphere. Modifications include
the averaging procedure and closure procedure. The wind speed is expressed as the sum of
two components, mean and turbulent: U U U and the same can be made for C as
C C C in (Eq. (5)) and hypothesizing a wind with divergence nil:
C
U.C-.CU D 2 C S
t
(6)
where CU is turbulent concentration flux.

The simplest closure method of (Eq. (6)) is a local first order closure in which K-theory is
used. Assuming that turbulent concentration flux is proportional to the gradient of the
average concentration, the following relation is obtained as:
CU KC (7)
where K (3x3) is turbulent diffusion coefficient.

When K tensor is diagonal, molecular diffusion is negligible and C(x, y, z, t) represents the
concentration of a non-reactive pollutant ( S S). Thus, the (Eq. (6)) can be written as
C
U.C .KC S
t
(8)
Eq. (8) can be solved for C analytically or numerically if input data for U, K and S are
provided with initial and boundary conditions. Exact solution can be obtained by analytical
methods, while numerical methods give the only approximate solutions. In this section we
will discuss only the Eulerian analytical models.
2.2.1 Eulerian analytical solutions of the advection diffusion equation for point source
in different atmospheric boundary conditions
Analytical solutions of the above equation are of fundamental importance in understanding
and describing physical phenomena. The deterministic models for the dispersion of
pollutants in atmosphere, based on the advection diffusion equation and K-theory as (Eq.
(8)), can be written as:
C C C C C C C
u v w Kx Ky Kz S ,
t x y z x x y y z z
(9)
www.intechopen.com
where Kx, Ky and Kz are the eddy diffusivities along x, y and z directions respectively.
C
The following assumptions are made in solution of Eq. (9):
0 ).
t
a. Steady-state condition is considered (i.e.,
b. The vertical velocity component (w) is neglected in comparison to horizontal

velocity components (u and v).
c. x-axis is oriented in the direction of mean wind (i.e., u=U, v=0).
d. Downwind diffusion is neglected in comparison to transport due to mean wind
C C
i.e., U K x .
x x x
Applications of these assumptions in (Eq. (9)), leads the steady state advection-diffusion
equation for dispersion of a non reactive contaminate released from continuous source as
(Seinfeld, 1986):
C C C
Ky Kz ,
x y y z z
U (10)
where x, y, and z are coordinates in the along-wind, cross wind and vertical directions
respectively. C is the mean concentration of pollutants and U is the mean wind speed in
downwind direction. Ky and Kz are eddy diffusivities of pollutants in the crosswind and
vertical directions respectively.
Eq.(10) is solved with the following boundary conditions, in which, h is the top of the
inversion/mixed layer:
Dirchlet Boundary Condition (total absorption)
C(x,y,z) 0 at z 0
C(x,y,z) 0 at z h (11.a)
Neumann Boundary Condition (total reflection)
C(x, y, z)
0 at z 0
z
Kz
C(x,y,z)
0 at z h
z
Kz (11. b)
Mixed (type-I) Boundary Condition
C(x, y, z)
0 at z 0
z
Kz
C(x,y,z) 0 at z h (11. c)
Mixed (type-II) Boundary Condition
C(x,y,z) 0 at z 0
www.intechopen.com
C(x,y,z)
0 at z h
z
Kz (11. d)
The pollutant decays in cross wind direction:
C(x, y, z) 0 as y (12)
The pollutant is released from an elevated point source of strength Qp located at the point (0,
ys, zs),
U C (0, y, z) = Qp (y y s ) (z zs ) , (13)
where is the Dirac delta function.

The transport of contaminant emitted from a source primarily depends on the wind speed
U. The formulations of the commonly used dispersion models in air quality studies assume
wind speed to be constant. However, it is well known that wind speed increases with height
in the lower part of the atmospheric boundary layer (Arya, 1999). The height dependent
wind speed can be expressed as
U (z) = az , a U(zr )zr , (14)
where U (zr) is the wind speed at reference height zr and depends on atmospheric
stability.
In formulation of dispersion models, Kz is parameterized as a function of height z only (Lin
& Hildemann, 1996; Park & Baik, 2008). However, based on the Taylors analysis and
statistical theory, it is revealed that the eddy diffusivity depends on the downwind distance
x (Arya, 1995).Thus, the eddy diffusivity can be a function of x and z both (Mooney &
Wilson, 1993; Sharan & Kumar, 2009). The modified form of Kz(x, z) is given as:
Kz (x, z) = Kz (z)f(x) , (15)
where Kz (z) is the form of eddy diffusivity depending on z and f(x) is assumed to be
function of x. Kz (z) is parameterized as a power law profile in z:
Kz (z) bz , b = Kz (zr )zr , (16)
where Kz (z r ) is the value of Kz at height z = zr and depends on atmospheric stability.

Using Taylors hypothesis, the lateral eddy diffusivity can be represented by (Huang, 1979;
Brown et al., 1997)
K y (x,z) U(z)
2
1 d y (x)
, (17)
2 dx
where y is the standard deviation of concentration distribution in the crosswind direction.
Based on the analysis of Prairie Grass and some other historical tracer experiments of
atmospheric dispersion, Irwin et al., 2007 concluded that the ground level crosswind
concentration profile of dispersing plume on average is well characterized as having a
Gaussian shape, which is well predicted by all atmospheric transport and diffusion models,
regardless of their sophistication. Thus, by assuming the Gaussian concentration
www.intechopen.com
distribution in crosswind direction (Huang, 1979; Irwin et al., 2007), the steady state
concentration of a pollutant released from point source in a three dimensional domain can
be described as
exp( y 2 /2 2y )
C (x, y, z) = C (x, z) , (18)
2 y
where C (x, z) is the crosswind integrated concentration.

The mathematical formulation of C(x,z) is obtained by substituting the wind profile (Eq.
(14)), diffusivity profile (Eq. (15)) and boundary conditions (Eqs. (11-13)) in the advection-
diffusion equation (Eq. (10)) as:
1 C b C
z
f x x a
z ,
z z
(19)
provided f(x) 0, x (0, ).

By using the separation of variables technique, the solution of the (Eq. (19)) is assumed in
the form:
C x,z X x Z z , (20)
which transforms the (Eq. (19)) into two following ordinary differential equations by taking
- 2 as the separation constant:
f x X 0
dX 2
(21)
dx
d dZ 2a
z z Z 0
dz dz b
(22)
s ds ,
Eq. (21) has the solution:
X x A exp 0 f
2 x
(23)
where A is an arbitrary constant.

The solution of Eq. (22) is obtained in different boundary conditions as follows:
i. Eq. (22), along with the following boundary condition corresponding to Eq. (11.a):
Z =0 at z = 0, h (24)
The solution of (Eq. (22)) with boundary condition (Eq. (24)) is zero for =0.
represents a Sturm-Liouville eigen value problem.
For a non-zero value of , the transformation of the variables
2

t z 2
(25)
and
www.intechopen.com
1
Z z z t

2
G (26)
in (Eq. (22)) leads to:
t2
dt 2
t
d 2 G dG
dt
k 2t2 2
G 0 , (27)
where
k
1
2 2 2
ab
and (28)
Eq. (27) is the Bessels equation, whose solution can be given as:
G t B1 J k t B2 J k t , (29)
where J and J- are the Bessels functions of first kind of order and - respectively. From
(Eqs. (25), (26) and (29)), we have
1 2 2
Z z z B 1 J kz B2 J kz

2 2 2 (30)

Application of the boundary condition (Eq. (24)) at z = 0 in (Eq. (30)) yields B2 = 0 and the
condition at z = h (Eq. (24)) gives rise:
2
J kh 0

2 (31)

The corresponding eigen functions are:
1 2
Zn z z J kn z , n = 1, 2, 3

2 2 (32)

The general solution of (Eq. (19)) is obtained by using (Eqs. (23), (31) and (32)) as:

1 b 2 2 k 2 x
C x,z z k n z 0 f s ds ,
2 2
An J exp

2 n (33)
n 1

4a
where A1, A2An are the unknown coefficients. The (Eq. (33)) represents the
concentration distribution C through the Fourier-Bessel series (Abramowitz & Stegun, 1972)
corresponding to a set of eigen functions Zn.
Estimation of the coefficients Ans for crosswind integrated concentration:
The source at x = 0, Eq. (13) gives:
k Q
1
az z 2 A n J z
2 2
z zs

(34)
n 1

n p
www.intechopen.com
k for m 1, and integrating it with respect to

The coefficients Ans are estimated using the orthogonal property of eigen functions
(Abramowitz & Stegun, 1972).
Multiplying (Eq. (34)) by z
1 2 2 2
J mz
k z
z from 0 to h, we get:
zs
1
2 2

2
A n Qp
2 J
k n h
2 2
n s
2
(35)
1
ah 2
J
Substituting the expression for Ans for n 1 in (Eq. (33)), the final solution is obtained as:

2
J z h 2 2
J zs h 2 2
C x,z Q p 2
z zs
1 2

J2 1 n
n n
n 1

a h
b 2 2
(36)
exp 0 f s ds ,
2
4a h 2
n x
in which n is given as:
J n =0. (37)
ii. The solution of Eq. (22) for crosswind integrated concentration by substituting the wind
profile (Eq. (14)) and diffusivity profile (Eq. (15)) in (Eq. (10)) for Neumann boundary
condition (Eq. (11.b)) is obtained from earlier study by Sharan & Kumar (2009) as:
1 2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (zs /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x, z) Qp
J [
(zzs )(1
n (z/h)
ah
1
ah 2
)/2
n 1 J 2 ( n )
b( 2)2 n2 x
(38)
exp( 0 f(s)ds) ,

2
4ah
J 1 ( n ) = 0. (39)
iii. The (Eq. (22)), along with the following boundary conditions corresponding to (Eq.
(11.c)):
0 at z = 0
dZ
bz and Z=0 at z = h (40)
dz
The solution of (Eq. (22)) with boundary condition (Eq. (40)) is zero for =0.
For a non-zero value of , the boundary condition (Eq. (40)) at z = 0 in (Eq. (30)) yields B1 = 0
and the condition at z = h (Eq. (40)) gives rise:
www.intechopen.com
2
J k h 0

2

(41)
1 2
Zn z z J k n z , n = 1, 2, 3,

2 2

(42)

1 b 2 2 k 2 x
2 2
An J exp

2 n

(43)
n 1 4a
where A1, A2 are the unknown coefficients.

The (Eq. (43)) represents the concentration distribution C as the Fourier-Bessel series
(Abramowitz & Stegun, 1972) corresponding to a set of eigen functions Zn.
Estimation of the coefficients Ans for crosswind integrated concentration
The source condition at x = 0 (Eq. (13)), gives:
k Q
1
az z 2 A n J z
2 2
z zs

(44)
n 1
n p
k , m 1, and integrating it with respect to z

1 2 2
J
2
mz
k z
from 0 to h, we get:
zs
1
2 2

2 J
A n Qp
2
2 2
n s
2
(45)
ah J 2 1 knh
Substituting the expression for Ans, n 1 into (Eq. (45)), the final solution of an elevated
point source at crosswind is obtained as:

2
J z h 2 2
J- zs h 2 2
C x,z Q p 2
z zs
1 2

n
n n
ah n 1 J 2 1

b 2 2
(46)

exp 0 f s ds ,
2
4a h 2
n x

J n =0. (47)
www.intechopen.com
iv. The (Eq. (22)), along with the following boundary conditions corresponding to (Eq.
(11.d)):
0 at z=h
dZ
Z = 0 at z = 0 and bz (48)
dz
The solution of (Eq. (22)) with (Eq. (48)) is zero for = 0.

For a non-zero value of , the boundary condition (Eq. (48)) at z = 0 in (Eq. (30)) yields B2 = 0
and the condition at z = h (Eq. (48)) gives rise:
2
1 k h 0

2

J (49)
1 2
Zn z z J kn z , n = 1, 2, 3,

2 2

(50)

1 b 2 2 k 2 x
2 2
An J exp

2 n
n 1

(51)
4a
where A1, A2 are the unknown coefficients. The Eq. (51) represents the concentration
distribution C as the Fourier-Bessel series (Abramowitz & Stegun, 1972) corresponding to a
set of eigen functions Zn.
Estimation of the coefficients Ans for crosswind integrated concentration
The source condition at x = 0 (Eq. (13)), gives:
k Q
1
az z 2 A n J z
2 2
z zs
n 1

n p (52)
k , m 1, and integrating it with respect to z

1 2 2 2
J mz
k z
from 0 to h, we get:
zs
1
2 2

2
A n Qp
2 J
J2 k n h
2 2
n s
2 (53)
ah
Substituting the expression for Ans, n 1 into (Eq. (51)), the final solution of an elevated
point source at crosswind is obtained as:
www.intechopen.com

2
J z h 2 2
J zs h 2 2
C x,z Q p 2
z zs
1 2

n
n n
ah n 1

2
J
b 2 2
(54)
exp 0 f s ds ,
2
4a h 2
n x
J 1 n =0. (55)
2.2.2 Point source models

The steady state three dimensional solution of a point source can be obtained from (Eq. (18))
and f(x), which is expressed as a linear function of downwind distance, i.e., f(x) = Ux
(Sharan & Modani, 2006), in different boundary conditions:
i. The solution in Dirichlet Boundary condition is given as
2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (zs /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x, y,z) (zzs )(1
Qp J [ n (z/h)
2 y ah 2
)/2
n 1 J2 1( n )
b U x-xs ( 2)2 (y y )2
(56)
exp( ) exp ,
2 2
2
2 2y
n s
8ah
where (1 )/( 2), J is the Bessel function of order and n 's are obtained
from the equation:
J ( n)= 0 (57)
ii. The solution in Neumann Boundary condition is given as
1 2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (zs /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x,y,z)
J [
(zzs )(1
Qp n (z/h)
2 y ah 1
ah 2
)/2
n 1 J2 ( n )
b U x-xs ( 2)2 (y y )2
(58)
exp( ) exp ,
2 2
2
2 2y
n s
8ah
where (1 )/( 2), J is the Bessel function of order is and n's are
obtained from the equation:
J 1 ( n ) = 0 (59)
iii. The solution in Mixed (type-I) Boundary condition is given as
www.intechopen.com
2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (z s /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x, y,z)
J [
(zzs )(1
Qp n (z/h)
2 y ah 2
)/2
n 1 J 2 1 ( n )
b U x-xs ( 2)2 (y y )2
(60)
exp( ) exp ,
2 2
2
2 2y
n s
8ah
where (1 )/( 2), J is the Bessel function of order and n's are obtained
from the equation:
J ( n) = 0 (61)
iv. The solution in Mixed (type-II) Boundary condition is given as
2
( 2)/2 ( 2)/2
C(x, y,z) (zzs )(1
Qp J [ n (z/h) ]J [ n (z s /h) ]
2 y ah 2
)/2
n 1
2
J ( n)
b U x-xs ( 2)2 (y y )2
(62)
exp( ) exp ,
2 2
2
2 2y
n s
8ah
where (1 )/( 2), J isthe Bessel function of order is and n 's are obtained
from the equation:
J 1 ( n ) = 0 (63)
2.2.3 Correspondence between present solutions to the earlier solutions

In present solution, wind speed is a function of z and vertical eddy diffusivity is considered
a function of x and z as Kz(x, z) = bz f(x). If f(x) is equal to 1.0, the solutions of Eqs. (56),
(58), (60) and (62) are become same as the solutions obtained by Lin & Hildemann (1996).
When wind speed is power law function of z and vertical eddy diffusivity is function of x
only, i.e. Kz(x, z) = f(x) = K(x) (for 0 and b =1.0), the expression for the two dimensional
concentration i.e., Eq. (38) is same as solution by Sharan & Modani (2006).
2.2.4 Line source models

A line source can be considered as a superposition of point sources. The solution for finite
line source can be obtained by integrating point source solution from ys = y1 to y2 with unit
source strength Q with the same n's as in point source in different boundary conditions:
i. The solution in Dirichlet Boundary condition is given as
Q 2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (z s /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x, y,z) (zzs )(1
J [ n (z/h)
2 ah 2
)/2
n 1 J2 1 ( n )
b U x-xs ( 2)2 y y1 y y2
(64)
exp( ) erf( ) erf( )
2 2
2

n
8ah 2 y 2 y
www.intechopen.com
ii. The solution in Neumann Boundary condition is given as
Q 1
( 2)/2
2 ]J [ n (zs /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x,y,z)
J [
(zzs )(1
n (z/h)
2 ah 1 ah 2
)/2
n 1 J 2 ( n )
b U x-xs ( 2)2 y y1 y y2
(65)
2 2
2
2 y
n
8ah 2 y
iii. The solution in Mixed (type-I) Boundary condition is given as
Q 2
( 2)/2
]J [ n (zs /h)( 2)/2 ]
C(x, y,z)
J [
(zzs )(1
n (z/h)
2 ah 2
)/2
n 1 J 1( n )
2
b U x-xs ( 2)2
(66)
y y1 y y2
2 2
2

n
8ah 2 y 2 y
iv. The solution in Mixed (type-II) Boundary condition is given as
Q 2
( 2)/2 ( 2)/2

C(x, y,z) (zzs )(1
J [ n (z/h) ]J [ n (z s /h) ]
2 ah 2
)/2
n 1
2
J ( n)
b U x-xs ( 2)2
(67)
y y1 y y2
exp( ) erf( ) erf( ) ,
2 2

2
n
8ah 2 y 2 y
where erf is the error function defined by
0 e dt
2 a t2
erf (a) =

The solution of an infinite line source of source strength Q can be obtained by integrating
point source along the crosswind direction ys = - to , which is different than the finite line
exp( y y s /2 2y )
2

source formulation, since dy s =1.
2 y
2.2.5 Area source models

The concentration of air pollutants due to a finite area source at (x, y, z) is calculated as a
superposition of finite line sources extending from x1 to x2 in x direction is obtained as
C(x, y,z) xx2 C(x xs , y,z)dxs , (68)

1
where C(x-xs, y, z) is equivalent to the finite line source as obtained in section 2.2.4.
However, the source strength Q is replaced by Qa in (Eqs. 64, 65, 66 and 67) with same
n's as in point source.
For an infinite area source with uniform strength Qa, the solution is obtained as:
C(x,z) xx2 C(x xs ,z)dxs , (69)

1
www.intechopen.com
where C(x-xs, z) is equivalent to the crosswind integrated concentration. However, the

source term Qp is replaced by Qa in (Eqs. 36, 38, 46 and 54) with same n's as in point
source.
Eqs. 68 and 69 are the solutions for finite and infinite area sources and can be solved
numerically.
If wind speed and vertical eddy diffusivity are considered as function of z, i.e. Kz(x, z) =
bz (f(x) =1.0) with unbounded region (h) and ground level source (zs0) in (Eq. (68)),
the expression obtained for the concentration is same as in Park & Baik, 2008.
3. Case study of Delhi

A case study of Delhi has been attempted through the application of two different categories
namely statistical and analytical models to fulfill the objective of the chapter.
3.1 Application of statistical models

First of all the daily Air quality index (AQI) as a comprehensive assessment of air quality
concentration of criteria pollutants namely Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter
(RSPM), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and Suspended Particulate Matter
(SPM) has been calculated at ITO (a busiest traffic intersection) for a period of seven years
(2000-2006), monitored continuously by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). A method
of US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has been used for estimating the AQI, in
which the sub-index and breakpoint pollutant concentrations depend on Indian National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). There are primarily two steps involved in
formulating an AQI: first the formation of sub-indices of each pollutant, second the
aggregation (breakpoints) of sub indices. The Breakpoint concentration of each pollutant,
used in calculation of AQI, is based on Indian NAAQS and results of epidemiological
studies indicating the risk of adverse health effects of specific pollutants. It has been noticed
that different breakpoint concentrations and different air quality standards has been
reported in literature (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). In India, to reflect the status
of air quality and its effects on human health, the range of index values has been designated
as Good (0-100), Moderate (101-200), Poor (201-300), Very Poor (301-400) and
Severe (401-500) (Nagendra et al. (2007)) as shown in Table 1.
The formula (EPA, (1999)) used to calculate AQI for four criteria pollutants RSPM, SO2, NO2
and SPM from 2000-2006 is given below:
I I
C P BPLo I Lo ,

IP
BPHi BPLo
Hi Lo

(70)
where IP = the AQI for pollutant p,

CP = actual ambient concentration of the pollutant p,
BPHi = the breakpoint in Table 1 that is grater than or equal to Cp,
BPLo = the breakpoint in Table 1 that is less than or equal to Cp,
IHi = the subindex value corresponding to BPHi,
ILo = the sub index value corresponding to BPLo.
www.intechopen.com
RSPM
Index SO2 (24-h NO2 (24-h SPM (24-
SI.No. Descriptor (24-h
values avg.) avg.) h avg.)
avg.)
1 0-100 Gooda 0-80 0-80 0-100 0-200
2 101-200 Moderateb 81-367 81-180 101-150 201-260
3 201-300 Poorc 368-786 181-564 151-350 261-400
4 301-400 Very Poord 787-1572 565-1272 351-420 401-800
5 401-500 Severee >1572 >1272 >420 >800
All the values of SO2, NO2, RSPM and SPM are in g/m3.
a. Good: Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern
for a very small number of people.
b. Moderate: Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects.
c Poor: Members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.
d Very poor: Triggers health alter, everyone may experience more serious health effects.
e Severe: Triggers health warnings of emergency conditions.
Table 1. Propose sub-index and breakpoint pollutant concentration for Indian-AQI.

The overall AQI is now determined on the basis of the AQI for above pollutant p and
highest among them is declared as the overall AQI for that day.
The above estimated daily AQI along with meteorological variables like daily maximum
temperature (tmax), minimum temperature (tmin), daily temperature range (difference
between daily maximum and minimum temperature, trange), average temperature (tavg),
wind speed (wsp), wind direction index (wdi), relative humidity (rh), vapor pressure (vp),
station level pressure (slp), rainfall (rf), sunshine hours (ssh), cloud cover (cc), visibility (v)
and radiation (rd), monitored at Safdarjung airport by Indian Meteorological Department
(IMD), Delhi, have been used in statistical models to forecast daily AQI one day in advance.
This study has been carried out for four different seasons namely summer (March, April,
May), monsoon (June, July, August), post monsoon (September, October, November) and
winter (December, January, February). The location ITO has been chosen in the present
study due to various reasons: (i.) a busiest traffic intersection, (ii.) air pollutants
concentration of RSPM, SO2, NO2 and SPM is monitored continuously and (iii.) the
meteorological station Safdarjung airport is within 10 km radius. These models include
previous days AQI and meteorological variables as input and yield daily forecasting of
AQI. The input and output is normalized between -1 to +1 using the minimum and
maximum of the time series before any preprocessing. Forecast of daily AQI in Delhi has
been obtained by two models MLR and ANN independently. The performance of both the
models has been assessed with respect to the statistical parameters.
3.1.1 AQI by MLR model

The following MLR equations for different seasons are resulted through training of AQI and
meteorological data of 2000-2005 using SPSS software for summer, monsoon, post monsoon
and winter respectively:
www.intechopen.com
[AQI] = 0.0478 + 0.504 x [AQId-1] -0.079 x [rh] +0.126 x [tmax] - 0.068 x [cc] (71)
[AQI] = 0.181 + 0.599 x [AQId-1] - 0.282 x [rh] - 0.128 x [v] - 0.155 x [tmin] (72)
[AQI] = -0.324 + 0.537 x [AQId-1] + 0.573x [slp] - 0.112x [vp] +
0.070 x [ssh] 0.135 x [v] + 0.066 x [tmax] (73)
[AQI] = 0.171 + 0.503 x [AQId-1] - 0.191x [v] - 0.115 x [cc]
0.169x [wsp] -0.157 x [rh] +0.151 x [rf] (74)

The previous days AQI is the common variable in all four equations. The above equations
have also been used to forecast the daily AQI of 2000-2005 for all four seasons, which have
been compared with the observed AQI, used as trained data of the corresponding seasons
during 2000-2005 and are shown graphically Figs.1 (a), (b) (c) and (d).
500
500
Observed
Prediction Ovserved
450 Prediction
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Days Days
(a) (b)
500
500
Observed Observed
Prediction
450 Prediction
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
AQI
250
AQI
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
0
Days 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Days
(c) (d)
Fig. 1. Comparison of observed and MLR model predicted values of daily AQI in (a)
Summer, (b) Monsoon, (c) Post Monsoon and (d) Winter seasons during the years 2000-2005.
www.intechopen.com
The Fig. 1 reflects that the trained values of AQI are matching well with observed values
(calculated directly from formulation Eq. (70)). The same set of Eqs. (71-74) have been used
for forecasting the daily AQI in all four seasons of the year 2006 which have been shown
graphically in Figs. 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) for summer, monsoon, post monsoon and winter
seasons respectively. The observed values of AQI of year 2006 for each season have also
been plotted in the Fig. 2 in order to validate the forecasted values of AQI.
500
Observed 500
Prediction Observed
450 Prediction
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
AQI
250
AQI
250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Days Days
(a) (b)
500 500
Observed
Observed
Prediction
Prediction
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Days
Days
(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Comparison of observed and models predicted values of daily AQI in (a) Summer,
(b) Monsoon, (c) Post Monsoon and (d) Winter seasons during the year 2006.
The quantitative analysis of comparison of forecasted and observed values of AQI has been
made through statistical parameters, which are summarized in Table 2. The NMSE and
coefficient of determination (R2) are found as (0.0094, 0.5718) in summer season which are
followed by (0.0369, 0.5247) in winter; (0.0629, 0.3913) in monsoon and (0.1287, 0.3021) in
post monsoon seasons, showing good performance of the model as the ideal values of
NMSE and R2 are 0 and 1 respectively. The values of R2 in four different seasons reflect that
the models forecasted and observed AQI could be correlated explained by the selected
input variables as approximately 57% in summer, 52% in winter, 39% in monsoon and 30%
in post monsoon seasons. However, the fractional bias shows the under-prediction in all the
seasons except Monsoon.
www.intechopen.com
S.N. Season 2006

coefficient of
RMSE NMSE Fractional Bias
determination
1 Summer 33.13 0.0094 0.5718 0.0126
2 Monsoon 72.99 0.0629 0.3913 -0.1246
3 Post Monsoon 99.18 0.1287 0.3021 0.1972
4 Winter 64.39 0.0369 0.5247 0.1573
Table 2. Comparison of MLR model predicted and observed values in years 2000-2005 and
year 2006.
3.1.2 AQI by ANN model

The ANN model for different seasons is developed through training of AQI and
meteorological data of 2000-2005 using MATLAB. The weights of a network are iteratively
modified to minimize the total mean squared error between the desired target and actual
output values. The above model has also been trained using observed daily AQI (same
values as in MLR) of 2000-2005 for all four seasons. The comparison of observed and trained
AQI has been shown graphically in Figs.3 (a), (b) (c) and (d).
500 500
Observed
Ovserved
Prediction
450 450 Prediction
400 400
350 350
300 300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Days
Days
(a) (b)
500 500
Observed Observed
Prediction Prediction
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Days
Days
(c) (d)
Fig. 3. Comparison of observed and ANN model predicted values of daily AQI in (a)
Summer, (b) Monsoon, (c) Post Monsoon and (d) Winter seasons during the years 2000-2005.
www.intechopen.com
The Fig. 3 reflects that the trained values of AQI are showing the same trend as observed
values. The same trained architectures have been used for forecasting the daily AQI in all
four seasons of the year 2006, which have been shown graphically in Figs. 4 (a), (b), (c) and
(d) for summer, monsoon, post monsoon and winter seasons respectively. The observed
values of AQI of year 2006 for each season have also been plotted in the Fig. 4 in order to
validate the forecasted values of AQI.
500
500
Observed
Observed
Prediction
450 Prediction
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Days Days
(a) (b)
500 500
Observed
Observed
Prediction
Prediction
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
AQI
AQI
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Days
Days
(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Comparison of observed and ANN model forecasted values of daily AQI in (a)
Summer, (b) Monsoon, (c) Post Monsoon and (d) Winter seasons during the year 2006.
The comparison of forecasted and observed values of AQI has been made through statistical
parameters in Table 3, which revels that the NMSE and coefficient of determination (R2) are
found as (0.0118, 0.4976) in summer season which are followed by (0.0277, 0.3986) in winter;
(0.0540, 0.3619) in monsoon and (0.0718, 0.3816) in post monsoon seasons, showing good
performance of the model as the ideal values of NMSE and R2 are 0 and 1 respectively. The
values of R2 in four different seasons reflect that the models forecasted and observed AQI
could be correlated explained by the selected input variables as approximately 50% in
summer, 40% in winter, 38% in post monsoon and 36% in monsoon seasons. However, the
fractional bias shows the under-prediction in all the seasons except Monsoon.
www.intechopen.com
S.N. Season 2006

Coefficient of
RMSE NMSE Fractional Bias
determination
1 Summer 36.88 0.0118 0.4976 0.0269
2 Monsoon 64.27 0.0540 0.3619 -0.0224
3 Post Monsoon 76.44 0.0718 0.3816 0.1355
4 Winter 56.52 0.0277 0.3986 0.1330
Table 3. Comparison of ANN model predicted and observed values in years 2000-2005 and
year 2006
3.1.3 Comparison of MLR and ANN models

On the basis of above exercise, it can be seen that ANN model is giving better results than
MLR model with respect to RMSE and NMSE as shown in Tables 2 and 3, although, the R2 is
showing almost same values in both the models throughout all four seasons.
3.2 Application of analytical models

The above discussed analytical model with Neumann boundary condition is applied to
simulate the hourly concentration of RSPM in the month of January (representative of
winter season) 2008 due to point, line and area sources. The most important parameters of
the models are emission inventory and meteorological variables, which are pre-process
according to the models requirement.
A gridded emission inventory of RSPM has been developed over an area of 26 km x 30 km
of Delhi. The total area has been divided into 195 square grids of size 2 km x 2 km. Emission
of RSPM has been estimated in each grid due to all anthropogenic sources viz., domestic,
industries, power plants and vehicles for the year 2008 using the primary and secondary
data. The emission of RSPM from domestic sector has been calculated on the basis of fuel
consumption data and the emission factor of the corresponding fuel. The emission
estimation from industrial sources has been made by using the data obtained from
concerned agencies / department. The emission of RSPM from power plants has been
calculated on the basis of information given by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC).
However, estimation of vehicular emission in each grid are made by using the following
mathematical formulation, based on total number of registered vehicles, emission factors,
vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) of each type of vehicle, different type of roads:
Ei = Ni x efi x VKTi, (75)

where Ni is the number of vehicle of category, Ei is the emission of pollutant by vehicle of
ith
ith category (g/day), efi is emission factor of ith category vehicle for the pollutant (g/km-
vehicle). VKTi is vehicle kilometer travel per day for ith category vehicle (km/day).
Further, the total emission of pollutant has been calculated by summing the emissions from
each category of vehicles:
E Ei (76)
i
www.intechopen.com
The emissions of RSPM due to vehicular sources in Delhi for the year 2008 have been
apportioned into each grid w. r. t. to the road lengths.
The gridded emission inventory shows the spatial distribution of emissions of RSPM due to
all types of sources (domestic, industries, power plants and vehicles) in Fig. 5. The emission
from domestic sources has been distributed uniformly in all the grids and the emission from
industries and traffic intersections have been apportioned according to their locations. The
emissions of RSPM due to three power plants namely Indraprastha, Badarpur and Rajghat
are superimposed in the grids as per their locations. It has been found that vehicles are the
major source, contributing 57% of RSPM among all the estimated sources, which is followed
by power plants 29% of total RSPM. While the contributions of domestic and other
industrial sources are 8% and 6% respectively. The Fig.5 reflects that grids, in which power
plants are located in addition to traffic intersections and industries, have higher values of
emissions compared to others. This emission inventory is used as input to the model.
Fig. 5. Emission inventory of RSPM (g/s) over Delhi from all sources (point, line and area).
From an atmospheric pollution perspective, the most important season in Delhi is the winter
lasting from December to February. This period is dominating by cold, dry air and ground
based inversion with low wind conditions (<1 ms-1), which increase the concentration of
pollutants (Anfossi et al., 1990). For practical reasons, the January month of 2008 is used in
this case study. The hourly meteorological data, measured at Safdarjung Airport from India
www.intechopen.com
Meteorological Department (IMD) is used as second input file to the models. There are some
traditional methods, which are used to determination, the stability classes to produce the
input in the model. The some traditional methods based on (i.) the wind velocity, sun
radiation intensity and cloud cover; (ii.) measurement of the wind direction fluctuations;
(iii.) the vertical temperature gradient; (iv.) the Richardson number can used to
determination, the stability classes.
Day Night
Incoming Solar Radiation Cloud Cover
Strong Moderate Mostly Mostly
Surface wind speed at 10m (m/s)
Slight Overcast Clear
<2 A A-B B E F
2-3 A-B B C E F
3-5 B B-C C D E
5-6 C C-D D D D
>6 C D D D D
Source: D.B. Turner. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimate. USEPA 999-AP-26. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, 1969.
Note: A, strongly unstable; B, unstable; C, weakly unstable; D, neutral; E, weakly stable and F, stable.
Table 4. Stability Classification based on wind velocity, sun radiation intensity and cloud cover.
Stability class (in Vertical Temperature Richardson

Stability Class
of Pasquill degree) Gradient (0C/m 10-2) Number at 2 m
Very unstable A 25.0 <-1.9 -0.9
Moderately
B 20.0 -1.9 to -1.7 -0.5
unstable
Slightly
C 15.0 -1.7 to -1.5 -0.15
unstable
Neutral D 10.0 -1.5 to -0.5 0
Slightly stable E 5.0 -0.5 to 1.5 0.4
Moderately
F 2.5 1.5 to 4.0 0.8
stable
Source: Zannetti, P., Air Pollution Modelling, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton,
Note: is the standard deviation of horizontal wind direction.

U.K. and Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990.
Table 5. Classification of Atmospheric Stability based on wind direction fluctuations,

vertical temperature gradient and the Richardson number.
In this study atmospheric stability is measured on the basis of surface wind speed, cloud
cover and solar insolation (strong, moderate, slight). These stability are classified according
to Pasquill's stability classes of A, B, C, D, E and F, which range from extremely unstable to
extremely stable as given by Turner (1969). The dispersion parameters have also been
calculated based on the stability parameters as discussed in section 2.
In the above solutions discussed in section 2, the exponent has relationship with Pasquills
Stability Classes (Hanna et al., 1982) and 1 is based on the Schmidts conjugate law.
www.intechopen.com
Pasquills
Stability A B C D E F
for Urban
Classes
0.15 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.40 0.60
Table 6. Approximate Correspondence between Pasquills Stability Classes and alpha ( )
(Hanna, 1982).
In these formulations f(x) is expressed as a linear function of downwind distance as f(x)
= Ux . In this function U is average velocity and is turbulence parameter. This
turbulence parameter is parameterized as the square of turbulent intensity using Taylor

w
2
U
statistical theory of diffusion (Arya, 1995; 1999). Turbulent intensity can be

expressed as w = tan , where is the standard deviation of vertical wind direction
U
in radians. For small , the turbulent intensity which is also depends on atmospheric

stability is approximated as (Arya, 1999): w .
U
Pasquills
Stability A B C D E F
Classes
11.5 10.0-11.5 7.8-10.0 5.0-7.8 2.4-5.0 < 2.4
Table 7. Approximate Correspondence between Pasquills Stability Classes and Turbulence
parameters (Arya, 1999).
direction is represented by a power of downwind distance y = Rxr (Seinfeld, 1986). These R

In the above solutions, standard deviation of concentration distribution in crosswind
and r are constants as depending on the atmospheric stability.
Stability Class
Source Coefficient
A B C D E F
R 0.443 0.324 0.216 0.141 0.105 0.071
(Turner, 1969; Martin, 1976)
r 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.894
Table 8. Approximate Correspondence between Pasquills Stability Classes and Gaussian
plume dispersion parameters (Seinfeld, 1986).
The 24 hourly averaged ground level concentration of RSPM from point, line and area
sources for Jan 2008 has been obtained by using the emission inventory and meteorological
data as input parameters to the models. The power plants are considered as the point
plume rise height h of stack (power plants). There are numerous methods for
sources. Most of the analytical methods for predicting the concentration from stack need the
calculating the plume rise height; in this study it has been calculated, given by Carpenter et
al., 1970:
www.intechopen.com
114 G I
h
1/3
, (77)
where I = gVsd2(Ts-Ta)/4Ta, m4s-3; G=1.58-41.4 , dimensionless; = potential

z z
temperature gradient, K/m; the constant 114 in this equation has unit of m ; Vs is the
o 2/3
stack gas exit velocity, in m/s; d is the stack exit diameter in m; u is the speed at the stack
exit in m/s; Ts is the stack gas temperature; Ta is the environmental temperature and g is the
gravitational acceleration, m/s2. This method is especially useful because the potential
temperature gradient factor is used for adjusting the different stability conditions.
The spatial distribution of RSPM concentration obtained from models (Eqs. (58), (64) and
(68)) with background concentration 40 g/m3 for Delhi (Kansal et al., 2011) is shown in Fig.
2 in the form of isopleths, which indicates the hot spots of RSPM ranging from 300-800
g/m3 at different locations namely I.T.O., Nizamuddin, Badarpur power station, I.P.
powers station, Rajghat power station, AIIMS, Sirifort and Dhaula Khuan, which are major
traffic intersections or power plants. This figure also shows the higher concentration near
the Shahzada Bagh, which has maximum number of industries.
Fig. 6. 24 hourly averaged concentration of RSPM (g/m3) due to all types of sources in Jan 2008.
www.intechopen.com
The concentrations of RSPM, cumulative sum of concentrations due to point, line and area
sources, is evaluated against observed concentrations obtained from CPCB and NEERI, at
different locations, as shown in Table 9.
National
Model predicted
Location Observed (g/m3) AmbientAir Quality
(g/m3)
Standard (g/m3)
Pitampura 353.00 411.30 100.00
Sirifort 374.00 449.45 100.00
Janakpuri 279.00 345.49 100.00
Shahzada Bagh 478.74 603.01 100.00
Sarojini Nagar 363.77 401.28 100.00
Table 9. Comparison of 24 hourly averaged predicted and observed concentration of RSPM
at different locations in Delhi in Jan 2008.
The table 9 shows that the models predictions are higher than observed as well as NAAQS.
However, these values are well within a factor of two of observed values, which satisfies the
criteria of Chang and Hanna (1982) for assessing the performance of the model with
conclusion that the models are performing satisfactory.
4. Conclusion
In the present study, the statistical (linear and non-linear) and analytical dispersion models
of air pollutants released from point, line and area sources are discussed. Air quality index
has been forecasted using MLR and ANN models. Performance of both the modes has been
compared and observed that ANN model is doing better than MLR.
The analytical models are formulated by considering the wind speed as a power law profile
of vertical height above the ground and vertical eddy diffusivity as an explicit function of
downwind distance and vertical height in different boundary conditions. A case study of
Delhi has been made for predict 24 hourly concentration of RSPM through the application
models with Neumann boundary condition in the month of Jan 2008. The input parameters
namely emission inventory and meteorological variables are pre-processed as per the
requirement of the model. The different types of primary and secondary sources of RSPM
due to vehicular, domestic, industries and power plants have been used in emission
inventory for year 2008. Some traditional methods for determining the meteorological field
are also discussed in this chapter, which are used as an input to these analytical models. The
analytical models are evaluated with observed concentration at different locations in Delhi
obtained from CPCB and NEERI, which show that the concentration levels obtained from
the models are always high in comparison to the observed values and NAAQS. However,
the models are performing satisfactory. Although the present models have the limitation as
the longitudinal diffusion is neglected in comparison to the advection and are not
considering the wind directions at different vertical heights. These models can be used for
other Indian urban cities.
5. Appendix A
The statistical measures, which have been used for statistical evaluation of the performance
of models has been given by Chang & Hanna (2004) as follows:
www.intechopen.com
5.1 Coefficient of correlation (R)

Coefficient of correlation (R) is relative measure of the association between the observed and
predicted values. It can vary from 0 (which indicates no correlation to +1 (which indicates
perfect correlation). A value of R close to 1.0 implies good agreement between the observed
and predicted values i.e. good model performance.
R
Co Co Cp Cp
Cp Co
5.2 Coefficient of determination (R2)

Coefficient of determination (R2), which is the square of coefficient of correlation,
determines the proportion of variance that can be explained by the model.
5.3 Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

RMSE, is a measure of the differences between values predicted by a model and the
observed values and is expressed as follows:
RMSE Co Cp
2
5.4 Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE)

NMSE, as a measure of performance, emphasizes the scatter in the entire data set and is
defined as follows:
Co Cp
2
NMSE
C o .C p
The normalization by C o .C p ensures that NMSE will not be biased towards models that
over predict or under predict. Ideal value for NMSE is zero. Smaller values of NMSE denote
better model performance.
5.5 Fractional Bias (FB)

It is a performance measure known as the normalized or fractional bias of the mean
concentrations:
Co CP ,
0.5 C o C P
FB
where:
Cp: model predictions,

Co: observations,
Overbar C : average over the dataset, and
C : standard deviation over the data set.
www.intechopen.com
6. References
Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I.A. (1972). Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
Graphs and Mathematical Tables. 9th printing. Dover Publications, New York.
Anfossi, D.; Brisasca, G. & Tinarelli, G. (1990). Simulation of atmospheric diffusion in low
wind speed meandering conditions by a Monte Carlo dispersion model. IL Nuovo
Climento. 13 C, 995-1006.
Aron, R. & Aron, I. M. (1978). Statistical forecasting models: I. Carbon monoxide
concentrations in the Los Angeles basin. Journal of Air Pollution Control
Association 28, 681684.
Aron, R. (1984). Models for estimating current and future sulphur dioxide concentrations in
Taipei. Bulletin of Geophysics 25, 4752.
Arya, S.P. (1995). Modeling and parameterization of near source diffusion in weak winds.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, 34, 1112-1122.
Arya, S.P. (1999). Air Pollution Meteorology and Dispersion. Oxford University Press, New York.
Boznar, M.; Lesjak, M. & Mlakar, P. (1993). A neural network-based method for short-term
predictions of ambient SO2 concentrations in highly polluted industrial areas of
complex terrain. Atmospheric Environment B27(2), 221230.
Brown, M.J.; Arya, S.P. & Snyder, W.H. (1997). Plume descriptors derived from a non-
Gaussian concentration model. Atmospheric Environment 31, 183189.
Carpenter, S.B.; Montgomery, T.; Leavitt, J.M.; Colbaugh, W.C. & Thomas, F.W. (1970).
Principal plume dispersion models, TVA power plants. 63rd Annual Meeting, Air
Pollution Control Association, June 1970.
Chang, J.C. & Hanna, S.R. (2004). Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorology
and Atmospheric Physics, 87, 167-196.
Cogliani, E. (2001). Air pollution forecast in cities by an air pollution index highly correlated
with metrological variables. Atmospheric Environment 35, 2871-2877.
Comrie, A. C. (1997). Comparing neural networks and regression models for ozone
forecasting. Journal of air and waste management association 47, 653663.
Demuth, C.I. (1978). A contribution to the analytical steady solution of the diffusion
equation for line sources. Atmospheric Environment, 12, 1255-1258.
EPA (1999). Air quality index Reporting Final Rule 1999-Federal Register, Part III, CFR Part 58.
Gardner, M. W. & Dorling (1999). Neural network modelling and prediction of hourly NOx and
NO2 concentrations in urban air in London. Atmospheric Environment 33, 709-719.
Hanna, S.R.; Briggs, G.A. & Hosker, R.P. Jr. (1982). Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion.
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Hinrichsen K. (1986). Comparison of four analytical dispersion models for near-surface
releases above a grass surface. Atmospheric Environment 20, 29-40.
Huang, C.H. (1979). A theory of dispersion in turbulent shear flow. Atmospheric
Environment, 13, 453-463.
Irwin, J. S.; Petersen, W. B. & Howard, S. C. (2007). Probabilistic characterization of
atmospheric transport and diffusion. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 46, 980993.
Kansal, A.; Khare, M. & Sharma, C.S. (2011). Air quality modelling study to analyse the
impact of the World Bank emission guidelines for thermal power plants in Delhi.
Atmospheric Pollution Research, 2 (2011), 99-105.
Katsoulis, B. D. (1988). Some meteorological aspects of air pollution in Athens, Greece.
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 39, 203212.
www.intechopen.com
Lin, G. Y. (1982). Oxidant prediction by discriminant analysis in the South coast air basin of
California. Atmospheric Environment, 16, 135143.
Lin, J.S. & Hildemann, L.M. (1996). Analytical solutions of the atmospheric diffusion
equation with multiple sources and height-dependent wind speed and eddy
diffusivity. Atmospheric Environment, 30, 239-254.
Mantis, H. T.; Repapis, C. C.; Zerefos, C. S. & Ziomas, J. C. (1992). Assessment of the
potential for photochemical air pollution in Athens: a comparison of emissions and
air pollutant levels in Athens with those in Los Angeles. Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 31, 14671476.
Martin, D.O. (1976). Comment on the change of concentration standard deviation with
distance. Journal of Air Pollution Control Association, 26, 145-146.
McCollister, G. M. & Wilson, K. R. (1975). Linear stochastic models for forecasting daily maxima
and hourly concentrations of air pollutants. Atmospheric Environment, 9, 417-423.
Milionis, A. E. & Davies, T. D. (1994). Regression and stochastic models for air pollution I.
review, comments and suggestions. Atmospheric Environment, 28 (17), 2801-2810.
Mooney, C.J. & Wilson, J.D. (1993). Disagreements between gradient-diffusion and
Lagrangian stochastic dispersion models, even for surface near the ground.
Boundary Layer Meteorology, 64, 291-296.
Park, Y.S. & Baik, J.J. (2008). Analytical solution of the advection-diffusion equation for a
ground-level finite area source. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 9063-9069.
Robeson, S. M. & Steyn, D. G. (1990). Evaluation and comparison of statistical forecast models
for daily maximum ozone concentrations. Atmospheric Environment, 24B, 303312.
Sanchez, M. L.; Pascual, D.; Ramos, C. & Perez, I. (1990). Forecasting particulate pollutant
concentrations in a city from meteorological variables and regional weather
patterns. Atmospheric Environment, 24A (6), 1509-1519.
Seinfeld, J.H. (1986). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution. Wiley-
Interscience, New York.
Sharan, M. & Kumar P. (2009). An analytical model for crosswind integrated concentration
released from a continuous source in a finite atmospheric boundary layer.
Atmospheric Environment, 43, 2268-2277.
Sharan, M. & Modani, M. (2006). A two-dimensional analytical model for the dispersion of
air-pollutants in the atmosphere with a capping inversion. Atmospheric
Environment, 40, 34793489.
Shi, J. P. & Harrison, R. M. (1997). Regression Modelling of Hourly NOx and NO2
concentrations in urban air in London. Atmospheric Environment, 31(24), 4081-4097.
Shiva Nagendra, S. M.; Venugopal, K. & Jones, S. L. (2007). Assesment of air quality near
traffic intersections in Bangalore city using air quality index. Transportation
Research Part D, 12, 167-176.
Stull, R.B. (1988). An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Academic, p. 666.
Taylor, G.I. (1921). Diffusion by continuous movements. Proc. London Math. Soc. Ser 2
Tirabassi, T. (2010). Mathematical air pollution models: Eulerian models, in Air pollution
and turbulence modeling and application, D. Moreira and M. Vilhena, pp. (131-
155), CRC press, 978-1-4398-1144-3, New York.
Turner, D.B. (1969). Workbook of Atmospheric Diffusion Estimates. USEPA 999-AP-26. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Wassermann, P. D. (1989). Neural Computing Theory and Practice. New York Van Nostrand
Reinhold.XX, 196212.
Zannetti, P. (1990). Air Pollution Modelling, Computational Mechanics Publications,
Southampton, U.K. and Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
www.intechopen.com
Air Quality-Models and Applications
Edited by Prof. Dragana Popovic
ISBN 978-953-307-307-1
Hard cover, 364 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 09, June, 2011
Published in print edition June, 2011
Air pollution has been a major transboundary problem and a matter of global concern for decades. High
concentrations of different air pollutants are particularly harmful to large cities residents, where numerous
anthropogenic activities strongly influence the quality of air. Although there are many books on the subject, the
one in front of you will hopefully fulfill some of the gaps in the area of air quality monitoring and modeling, and
be of help to graduate students, professionals and researchers. The book is divided in five sections, dealing
with mathematical models and computing techniques used in air pollution monitoring and forecasting; air
pollution models and application; measuring methodologies in air pollution monitoring and control;
experimental data on urban air pollution in China, Egypt, Northeastern U.S, Brazil and Romania; and finally,
the health effects due to exposure to benzene, and on the influence of air pollutants on the acute respiratory
diseases in children in Mexico.
How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:
P. Goyal and Anikender Kumar (2011). Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants: An Application to Indian Urban
City, Air Quality-Models and Applications, Prof. Dragana Popovic (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-307-1, InTech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/air-quality-models-and-applications/mathematical-modeling-
of-air-pollutants-an-application-to-indian-urban-city
InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com

Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants: An Application To Indian Urban City

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants: An Application To Indian Urban City

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7

Mathematical Modeling of Air Pollutants:

2.1.1 Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) models

Y= b1 +b2 X2+...........+bk Xk+ e (1)

The solution of above equation can be obtained as b = X X X Y using minimum square

2.1.2 Artificial Neural Network

2.2 Deterministic models

where: C- concentration of pollutant in the atmospheric air,

where CU is turbulent concentration flux.

where K (3x3) is turbulent diffusion coefficient.

b. The vertical velocity component (w) is neglected in comparison to horizontal

Neumann Boundary Condition (total reflection)

Mixed (type-I) Boundary Condition

Mixed (type-II) Boundary Condition

The pollutant decays in cross wind direction:

where is the Dirac delta function.

U (z) = az , a U(zr )zr , (14)

Kz (x, z) = Kz (z)f(x) , (15)

Kz (z) bz , b = Kz (zr )zr , (16)

where Kz (z r ) is the value of Kz at height z = zr and depends on atmospheric stability.

where C (x, z) is the crosswind integrated concentration.

provided f(x) 0, x (0, ).

where A is an arbitrary constant.

For a non-zero value of , the transformation of the variables

in (Eq. (22)) leads to:

k for m 1, and integrating it with respect to

in which n is given as:

in which n is given as:

The corresponding eigen functions are:

where A1, A2 are the unknown coefficients.

k , m 1, and integrating it with respect to z

The solution of (Eq. (22)) with (Eq. (48)) is zero for = 0.

The corresponding eigen functions are:

k , m 1, and integrating it with respect to z

in which n is given as:

2.2.2 Point source models

ii. The solution in Neumann Boundary condition is given as

iii. The solution in Mixed (type-I) Boundary condition is given as

iv. The solution in Mixed (type-II) Boundary condition is given as

2.2.3 Correspondence between present solutions to the earlier solutions

2.2.4 Line source models

ii. The solution in Neumann Boundary condition is given as

iii. The solution in Mixed (type-I) Boundary condition is given as

iv. The solution in Mixed (type-II) Boundary condition is given as

where erf is the error function defined by

2.2.5 Area source models

C(x, y,z) xx2 C(x xs , y,z)dxs , (68)

C(x,z) xx2 C(x xs ,z)dxs , (69)

where C(x-xs, z) is equivalent to the crosswind integrated concentration. However, the

3. Case study of Delhi

3.1 Application of statistical models

where IP = the AQI for pollutant p,

e Severe: Triggers health warnings of emergency conditions.

Table 1. Propose sub-index and breakpoint pollutant concentration for Indian-AQI.

3.1.1 AQI by MLR model

[AQI] = -0.324 + 0.537 x [AQId-1] + 0.573x [slp] - 0.112x [vp] +

0.070 x [ssh] 0.135 x [v] + 0.066 x [tmax] (73)

[AQI] = 0.171 + 0.503 x [AQId-1] - 0.191x [v] - 0.115 x [cc]

0.169x [wsp] -0.157 x [rh] +0.151 x [rf] (74)

S.N. Season 2006

3.1.2 AQI by ANN model

S.N. Season 2006

3.1.3 Comparison of MLR and ANN models